INSPEC42318 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.' . (Page 21 • MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1986-061 INSPECTION DATE 10/26/00 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of 112 Construction Materials permits, to review changes made as part of Technical Revision TR-02, and as an enforcement follow-up to assess the Board-ordered reclamation of offsite damage. The operator was contacted about the inspection and the operator's representatives named on page one arrived on the site at 4:00 pm, and remained throughout the rest of the inspection. The bond presently posted for this operation is based on the reclamation costs for the entire site. Not all of the site is disturbed, however, and it is felt that there is more than enough band presently posted. This permit is due for its periodic review of reclamation costs, which this office will forward to the operator. The amount of mining-related disturbance in the permitted area was measured, to be able to assign current reclamation costs to the operation. The permit ID sign was posted at the entrance to the site, and several permit boundarv markers were noted, but not all of them. Presumably some of them have recently been removed to allow reclamation earthwork to be carried out, but the operator must ensure that all boundarv markers are again posted in a durable manner and in their proper locations, around the entire perimeter of the affected area. This is not noted as a problem at this time, but will be a monitoring topic at inspections in the future. This is important since it will help prevent the recurrence of offsite damage, and to allow the current offsite damage to become reclaimed with no further disturbance. There were several items observed onsite which are problems, as noted on page one, which are detailed below: 1. There are several patches of various noxious weeds present on the site. Patches of knapweed were observed on the northeastern berm of Phase I, covering an area of at least 1000 sq ft. Small patches and scattered individual thistle plants are present on the same berm in Phase I, on the western highwall slope and on the floor, all in Phase I. These infestations have occurred since the site was disturbed by mining, and are the operator's responsibility to control. The spread of noxious weeds is considered a reclamation cost liability, and also presents a threat of spread onto adjacent unpermitted lands. This is noted as a problem under the tonic of "reveaetation" and must be corrected by implementing a noxious weed control plan The plan must be written with the help of a qualified weed control authoriri and must be submitted to this Division with the written commitment to implement it. Please see the last page for the correction date. (Please note: If a written weed control plan currently exists, it may be submitted, rather than writing a new one. If it is being implemented please state that information.) 2. The operator has imported and stockpiled about 2500 cubic yards of sand from another site, originally to be used as an additive in the asphalt botching which occurred here earlier this year. The sand was not used, however, and still remains on the site, though the asphalt botching is finished. This material was imported without properly notifying the Division and may present an additional reclamation liability. This is noted as a problem in this report under the topic of "general mine plan compliance" and must be corrected by submitting a Notice in accordance with Construction Materials Rule 3.1.5191. The Notice will contain all required information described in the rule especially with regard to material characteristics so that a determination may be made as to whether it is a product able to be sold or a material which must be backfilled as part of reclamation. Please see the oast paae for the correction date. 3. Stormwater is impounded in the floor of Phase I though not in the approved locations and stormwater runoff has eroded one of the graded hiphwalls and breached a retention berm in Phase II. The impounded water is an issue especially since one of the ponds surrounds waste asphalt piles which are presumed to be "new" (i.e., not yet "inert"1, The gullying occurred in the northern part of Phase II, to a partially reclaimed slope, to depths of up to 6 feet, which points out a lack of upland diversions and/or lack of adequate onsite stormwater controls. The breached berm allowed sediment-laden stormwater to exit the pad area and erode a fill slope. Stormwater controls are specified in the permit file, and they are either lacking or inadequate. Allowing such damage to occur may also constitute additional future reclamation costs if left unchecked, or pose a potential for additional damage outside the permit boundary (which may be a possible violationl. These items are noted as a problem under the topics of "stormwater management plan" and "erosion and sedimentation." The operator must revise the present stormwater control plan and resubmit it or simply implement the existing one. Please see the last paae for the correction date.